In theory, Scott could apply for banking jobs again. But his degree is almost eight years old and he has no relevant experience.

Scott, you're not a recruiter. Let the people hiring tell you why you can't get a job. Don't tell yourself why before you fill out a single application.

He sometimes considers getting a master’s, but that would mean walking away from his salary and benefits for two years and taking on another five digits of debt—just to snag an entry-level position, at the age of 30, that would pay less than he makes driving a bus.

Most people go for their master's, especially if it's an MBA, part-time. Even if most people didn't, Scott still could. And if his job offers salary and benefits, he should check out whether they offer tuition reimbursement, too.

Also, if you have a master's (presumably in business) and you snag an entry level position, you are doing it wrong.

But the real victims of this credential inflation are the two-thirds of millennials who didn’t go to college.

I found no stats on millenials with no college. I was interested in %s of m. with no college vs m. with some college, as I am pretty sure they are not 66% and 0%. Like I suspect the stats are vastly different than that.

Unions, the great negotiators of wages and benefits and the guarantors of severance pay, became enemy combatants.

Learn your history. unions were always enemies to business-america. i mean, literally right from the start when people were dying in factories because they had been locked inside of them in unsafe conditions in like, the 1800s. Companies vs. unions have always been in opposition

Over the last 30 years, [trade unions have] successfully lobbied state governments to require occupational licenses for dozens of jobs that never used to need them. It makes sense: The harder it is to become a plumber, the fewer plumbers there will be and the more each of them can charge. Nearly a third of American workers now need some kind of state license to do their jobs,

wow. how unsafe that sounds. forcing workers to demonstrate they are properly educated and trained in order to execute their work. not letting just anyone off the street represent to the public they know how to do any trade job

btw, the author is citing this tidbit because he is trying to blame the fact that state gov'ts and trade groups are upping the standards for qualified workers for increased un/poor employment

he later calls these upped requirements "barriers to skilled occupations"

i didn't know that requiring a person to demonstrate they're skilled was an actual barrier to practicing a skilled occupation

In the 1970s, when the boomers were our age, young workers had a 24 percent chance of falling below the poverty line. By the 1990s, that had risen to 37 percent. And the numbers only seem to be getting worse. From 1979 to 2014, the poverty rate among young workers with only a high school diploma more than tripled, to 22 percent.

I really don't think this is a good paragraph. I just hate how we jump from one stat to another halfway through with no solid connection or explanation of what ties the two together. i feel this is either a poor argument or poorly written, but which one?

GABE'S STORY

a retelling

Gabe was 19, not in college, and had a job. His sister got hurt. Apparently there are no taxis or ubers or buses in Gabe's town. Gabe took off work to drive her home without speaking to a manager. Gabe was in violation of his work's PTO policy. Gabe got fired.

Now Gabe has a job, lives in the same place, and still doesn't go to college. He still wants to get a degree guaranteed to keep him impoverished, but realized a trade job's more realistic. He's pursuing one.

“I don’t understand why it’s so hard to do something with your life,” he tells me.

THE TRAGIC END

______

Pause from the commentary:

There is enough that this article is validly putting a finger on - enough true points and concerning observations about How Society's Going These Days - that when it grasps and flails and wrings its hands in ways like I call out above, it makes the whole thing a shame.

A good story is so good it doesn't need to cut corners with the truth. The only way to ruin a perfect example is to fail to point out its lines clearly, cleanly, precisely to the audience.

Anyway, that's pedantics, and my personal opinion to boot.

Maybe the rest of this article gets better in quality (I'm continuing to read it and honestly finding less annoyances) - or maybe it gets waaay more general in its mounting stack of conclusions - I feel so/so on the whole thing, by now, but this shit appears long af -- but I guess I just don't know what I/we/society is/are supposed to do about it. You know, when we get up after reading this. I guess maybe ultimately the answer lies in voting? A lot of voting? But I don't know how I feel about how effective that system really is, in theory or in practice. I guess -

the article's tl,dr; society sucks and is vastly unjust especially if you're young

ok, so? but what's its point?

all i can think to do is try to do the best i can in life

unfair and sucky and shitty and povertous as apparently it's doomed to be for me and my cadre , all i can think to do about my reality within that is the best i can within it, right? maybe i can change it but i don't think i can escape it. millennials are doomed. so what, we're doomed.

-----

disclaimer: i am, by all standards set forth within this article, an extremely privileged millennial. I defy most of the statistics cited from start to finish, including that one about how, "young people were less likely to have lived at a different address a year earlier than at any time since 1963."

Does that make me part of the problem? Oh but it's so comfortable here.